Overview
Inactivity
Single Adults Scorecard: Questions 4A, 4B, 4C
Youth Scorecard: Questions 6A, 6B, 6C
Family Scorecard: Questions 5A, 5B, 6C
The foundational content below applies System-wide to all populations. Sections at the bottom of this page highlight areas where there may be population specific nuances for Single Adults, Youth, and Families.
Does our community have a clear, consistently implemented policy for determining when someone is no longer active on the by-name dataset?
This page, along with related tools, resources, and case studies, will help you answer the inactivity questions across all three population scorecards. These questions dig deeper into how a community can understand and track whether someone experiencing literal homelessness is no longer active, or is “inactive,” and help communities ensure that inactive policies, processes, and procedures are consistently defined and implemented.
How is inactivity defined by Built for Zero?
Generally speaking, BFZ defines someone as “inactive” in a given community if they no longer meet the U.S. Department of Housing and Development’s definition of literal homelessness in the community’s geographical area. This includes:
- When the homeless response system cannot confirm a person or household’s housing status (after being initially identified as literally homeless) because they were unable to contact that person after a specified number of contact attempts within a defined time frame (as defined by the community).
- When a person or household who was initially identified as literally homeless moves into a temporary housing situation that does not meet HUD’s literally homeless definition. For example, couch surfing or doubling up.
- When a person or household moves out of the community’s defined geographical area (as defined by the community).
- When a person or household who was initially identified as experiencing literal homelessness moves into an institutional setting for more than 90 days.
- The unfortunate scenario when someone on the active list passes away.
Examples of an institutional setting (examples based on HMIS data standards)
Foster care, foster care group home, hospital, residential non-psychiatric medical facility, long-term care facility or nursing home, psychiatric hospital or other psychiatric facility, jail, prison, juvenile detention facility, substance abuse treatment facility, or detox center.
Why does tracking inactivity matter?
Connecting folks who are unhoused to housing quickly
Tracking inactivity can help communities efficiently match individuals on the active list to housing opportunities and help service providers coordinate care. Having a reliable and updated list of everyone experiencing homelessness allows a community to quickly connect individuals to eligible housing opportunities and resources. Another benefit of continuously updating someone’s active status is that it requires the system to be accountable for maintaining contact with everyone who is identified as unhoused. This can decrease the likelihood of someone not receiving services or housing opportunities solely because they have lost contact with a specific person or provider.
Greater insight into potential areas for system improvement
Tracking how many people exit the homeless response system because they moved to inactive each month provides important information about a system’s performance and capacity. By tracking inactivity, communities can start to identify areas for improvement. For example, how many people are inactive each month because they lost contact with the system versus entering an institution? How many people are returning to homelessness who last exited the system to inactivity? Knowing why empowers communities to improve their system and better advocate for the resources needed to address homelessness.
How to develop and implement an inactive policy
The BFZ Inactive Policy Guide. can help your community create inactive policies and procedures that align with the BFZ quality data standards.
The scorecard questions cover three primary topics, all of which depend on having a documented inactive policy:
- Establishing an inactive threshold based on loss of contact. Communities should define the specific steps and time frame required to confirm that someone is no longer active due to loss of contact. This drives accountability and ensures the community has made a documented, good-faith effort to engage with someone before moving them to inactive status.
- Defining circumstances when someone can be moved to inactive without additional outreach. Some situations allow a community to move someone to inactive status without first exhausting contact attempts. Some examples include the scenario when someone moves to another community, transitions to a temporary housing situation that no longer meets the literal homelessness definition, or passes away. Communities should document these circumstances clearly so they are applied consistently across providers.
- Tracking institutional placements. Communities should have a documented process for identifying and tracking individuals who move into an institutional setting for more than 90 days. This keeps the active list accurate and provides valuable data on how people move between homelessness and adjacent systems such as health care and criminal justice.
Population-Specific Guidance
The content above applies to inactivity System-wide across all populations. The sections below highlight key nuances and considerations for specific populations. (On the toolkit website, these sections will appear as collapsible accordions.)
Single Adults often make up the largest share of people experiencing homelessness in many communities and may include individuals with long histories of homelessness, complex needs, or limited trust in systems. As a result, inactive policies should strike a balance between persistent engagement and maintaining a manageable, accurate active list.
Key considerations for single adult inactivity:
- Prioritize Proactive Engagement: Some Single Adults may require more intentional and creative engagement strategies. Communities should focus on consistent outreach, relationship building, and coordination across providers before determining that someone is inactive.
- Ongoing Evaluation of Inactive Policy: Communities should review and refine thresholds as needed to assess whether their inactivity window appropriately balances inclusion (not missing people still experiencing homelessness) with usability (ensuring the active list reflects those who can realistically be engaged and served.)
Youth and Young Adults may be more likely than Single Adults to cycle between literal homelessness (HUD Categories 1 and 4) and temporarily unstable housing situations, such as staying with friends or family on a temporary basis. This pattern of movement makes inactivity tracking more nuanced for this population.
Key considerations for Youth inactivity:
- Clearly Defined Unstable/Temporary Living Situations: Communities should clearly define in their inactive policy how and when a young person staying in a temporary or unstable setting, such as couch surfing, staying with a friend or family member on a short-term basis, will be considered inactive. Without a clear definition, communities risk prematurely moving young people to inactive status when they are still experiencing literal homelessness.
- Institutional Settings: Institutional settings for youth may look different than for adults. Juvenile detention, group homes, and residential treatment programs are common institutional settings for young people and should be considered when developing an inactive policy.
Coming Soon
Built for Zero is actively gathering best practices in family systems. Additional guidance will be added to this section as communities share their approaches.
Submit Questions or Feedback
We want to hear from you! Let us know if you have specific feedback, comments, or questions about the material on this page.
Submit Questions or Feedback
We want to hear from you! Let us know if you have specific feedback, comments, or questions about the material on this page.
